Advanced Hair Restoration, LLC v. Hair Restoration Centers, LLC

Filing
29

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
ADVANCED HAIR RESTORATION, LLC,
Plaintiff,
Case No. C17-709RSM
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL
v.
HAIR RESTORATION CENTERS, LLC,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Defendant.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Advanced Hair Restoration, LLC’s
Motion to Compel. Dkt. #16.
Local Rule 37(a)(1) states:
Meet and Confer Requirement. Any motion for an order
compelling disclosure or discovery must include a certification, in
the motion or in a declaration or affidavit, that the movant has in
good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or
party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to
resolve the dispute without court action. The certification must
list the date, manner, and participants to the conference. If the
movant fails to include such a certification, the court may deny
the motion without addressing the merits of the dispute. A
good faith effort to confer with a party or person not making a
disclosure or discovery requires a face-to-face meeting or a
telephone conference. . . .
LCR 37(a)(1) (emphasis added).
28
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL - 1
Plaintiff’s counsel certifies that he conferred telephonically with Defendant’s counsel
1
2
on December 4, 2017. Dkt. #16 at 5. However, this was not a typical meet-and-confer prior to
3
filing a motion to compel, as attached exhibits show that this December 4 conference ended
4
with an agreement to continue to produce records, and the Court notes that the instant Motion
5
6
was filed ten days later on December 14, 2017. See Dkt. #17-10.
Further examination of the record indicates that Defendant’s counsel contacted
7
8
Plaintiff’s counsel on December 13, 2017, stating that there were “unanticipated roadblocks in
9
collecting information and documents,” but that Defendant was “still committed to providing
10
11
12
you with the financial and other information…” Dkt. #17-11 at 3. After Plaintiff’s counsel
refused to further accommodate Defendant’s delays in producing these records and threatened
13
to file a motion to compel, Defendant’s counsel stated on December 14, 2017, “[a]ny motion to
14
compel would be premature. We are requesting a further meet and confer regarding the
15
discovery requests.” Id. at 2. Rather than conduct another meet-and-confer, Plaintiff simply
16
filed this Motion. See Dkt. #16 at 5 (“As these efforts, and HRC’s ongoing failure to provide
17
18
19
any information or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s request makes clear, further negotiation
with HRC regarding the deficiencies in its discovery responses would be futile.”).
20
In Response to this Motion, Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to conduct a proper
21
meet and confer. Dkt. #24 at 3–4 (citing Beasley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2014 WL
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1268709, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 25, 2014) (“A good faith effort to resolve discovery disputes
requires an exchange of information until no additional progress is possible.”). Defendant
argues:
The record here shows that Defense counsel was in the process of
making a production and still trying to resolve any disputes prior to
Plaintiff filing this motion to compel. At the time this motion was
filed, there was reason to believe that a good faith effort was
underway that would have resulted in the production of documents
and information Plaintiff sought without the need for Court
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL - 2
intervention. This is precisely the type of situation Rule 37 seeks to
avoid. In short, Plaintiff failed to complete the meet and confer
process and the parties were not at an impasse, requiring this
motion to compel to be denied.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Id. at 4. Defendant points out that it has subsequently made a production of the requested
records.
On Reply, Plaintiff again reiterates that “any further negotiation regarding the multiple
deficiencies in Defendant’s responses would have been futile.” Dkt. #26 at 2. Plaintiff argues
that “Plaintiff’s counsel has continued to confer with Defendant’s counsel regarding its
10
deficient production and responses since this filing,” and argues that this satisfies its Rule 37
11
requirements. Id. at 5.
12
13
The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff has not satisfied Local Rule 37(a)(1)’s
meet and confer requirement. There is no evidence that the parties reached an impasse in their
14
15
discussions; to the contrary it appears that Defendant was, perhaps belatedly, attempting in
16
good faith to resolve the discovery dispute outside of Court by producing the requested records.
17
When the parties disagreed about the sufficiency of this response, Defendant actually requested
18
and was refused a telephonic conference. Instead, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion that day.
19
Given all of the above, the Court concludes that this Motion is properly denied as
20
21
procedurally improper.
Accordingly, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff
22
Advanced Hair Restoration, LLC’s Motion to Compel, Dkt. #16, is DENIED.
23
DATED this 12 day of February, 2018.
24
25
26
A
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27
28
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL - 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.